Signal-Copiahan. (Hazlehurst, Copiah County, Miss.) 1885-1888, 1887-11-24
appropriately qualified in cxparte

81 Miss, 30, that where there is well
founded or reasonable doubt OF the
guilt OF n prisoner it cannot no said
that the proof is evident or the pre-
sumption great of his guilt, and it is
we'll approved doctrine in this state
that where upon the evidence there ID
probability Of the prisoners limo
cence there must he n reasonable d0urt
of his guilt. helms va. the state ~
Miss, :i62; Nixon VS. the State - Miss,
525; Browning vs.. the State, 10 Miss,
656.
The policy of the Constitution and
laws of Mississippi in regard to ban
is liberal and was expressly chararnc-
terizcd as such ~ Judge llarrls.speak..
ing for the High Court of Errors ana
Appeals in Moore Va. The State,
Is Miss, III. II this policy has been
changed. or if U,src is any reason why
it should he changed at this day, nm
not advised of it. The Constitution on
the subject il the same now that it was
thcn, and no such change has been
wrought by statue or any decision OF
this court. and if there is any decision
of this court which can be properly
construed by anybody to have such
effect do not, cannot ana vii, not
subscribe to il. Such is the law of the
land Az understand it, and it is appli-
cable without fear, favor or affection
to all alike.
The judicial officer who hears IN APP
plication for bail il the trier of the
facts and must determine on his own
Judgment and conscience whether the
testimony under the law. warrants hail
or not, hut in doing SD, he is governed
by tho established rules OF law such IN
I have stated. a matter of 80 much
ilu portancc, and capable of becoming
u source of 40 much vcXatiOn and OPP
preston, is not, and should not be left
to the mere caprice, or will, or pleas
ure of any court or any officer.
| When called upon here to review Il
Judgment denying bail, we nre gov
crncd by the same rules of law which
control the action of the officer below.
We record to his Judgment the prinln
iacic presumption of correctness which
attaches to the Judgments of MI courts
of competent Jurisdiction, and place Il
proper estimate on the advantages
which he enjoyed for determining the
crcdibility OF witnesses by seeing and
hearing them testify, but that weight
shall be ascribcd hy tho appellate
Court to such Judgment must depend
OH the circumstances of each case.
There is no cast iron rulc on the sub
ject. II is certain that there are sew.
cral eases in this State, in which hail
WAS denied below OH the facts, and
which were afterwards reversed on APP
peal and bail granted here, on tho
same facts, AMI facts qnite rs strong
against the prisoner, it seems to me, rs
those in the casc before us. 1t seems
to me that one can properly attach but
little importance, in the ease ut bar,
To the conclusion of tho Chancellor ~
tn the facts. for our unanimous opin-
ion, reversing the Judgment rs to Eu-
banks, cxplodcs, us far rs orr .indg-
ment can do so, the theory of cOnspir'
acy, and of more persons than llamil-
ton aud Gamhrcll being engaged in
the tragedy, upon which the prosccu-
ton has been conducted and upon
which the Judgment of the Chancellor
was evidently based. Rejecting then,
az we all do, the theory Of the State rs
tn how the homicide occurred, it be-
comes vital To know how the fatal diff
iiculty commenced on the bridge; what
was the first demonstration made and
| by whom; what was the first thing said
Oh done'on the meeting OF the two arm
ed and hostile mcu under circIns,an-
ccs in which the slightest movement
OH the part of the one would have
been accepted IN II tocsin of war 10y
the other. There are in addition to
physical facts several eye witnesses to
the transaction, whose testimony on
these points,it credited, relieves Ham
iltun from crininality, anu | cannot
SAY that it was impossible for She facts
tn have occurred to which they testify.
There is tn say the least of it, such nm.
certainty rs ~ produce well founded
and reasonable doubt in my Judgment,
and am bound under the law To rs
solve surh dOnbt in favor of the pris-
oncr. The trial below being conduct
cd on the conspiracy theory maniestly
enlarged the scope OF investigation AMI
testimony greatly tn the disadvantage
of Hamilton, and it seems to me that
common justice an'l fairness appeal III
his favor for another hearing for his
liberty on the merits of the ease, dis
connected from the burdens w'ici, we
all believe were unjustly imposed up
OH him in the trial below. To disrc-
gard such considerations may be law
full, but it cannot he just.
Entertaining these views of the law
and the iacfs it is 'Opinion that ON
settled principles the Judgment should
be reversed us to Hamilton rs well us
Eubank.
| Nv uwrcemcnI between counsel for